Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 596 posts

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#51

Post by luckylion »

chowchowchow wrote: post #42
luckylion wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies hire people in useless positions all the time you know. Yeah, they're called princelings, it's very common in China. If you want to do business, you hire the child of a high-ranking party member, pay them large sums of money for zero work and then you get all the permits you need.

Mmhmm. I said it’s unfair. Again I don’t see how reiterating that Hunter Biden probably got some jobs because of his name proves the more salacious allegations that were the center of the story...

It doesn't, of course. Just as Mercedes paying Chinese princelings millions doesn't prove that there's corruption in China.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#52

Post by joejohnson »

akvadrako wrote: post #48
joejohnson wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left did not suppress this story, liberal media did. You’re responding to a post criticizing this suppression written by a leftist.

In the USA liberal and left are closely related - it basically means votes Democrat.

This is incorrect. Just because the two party system has suppressed anything to the left of the democrats does not mean liberals are in any way “the left”; there are many leftist voices in the US (Matt Taibbi, author of the post you’re replying to and presumably read, being one of them) and they are often critical of liberals.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#53

Post by darkerside »

PaulAJ wrote: post #38
darkerside wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, but I don't think the previous status quo was tenable either, and maybe even more problematic. Disclaimer: these are opinions. We allow mainstream press, owned by allies of a politician, to make outlandish claims unverified in the weeks leading up to an election. This has always been "correctable" in the past, in a world where articles could be retracted or condemned, particularly by even more m…

The truth is not a social construct. Either Hunter Biden received that "thanks for the meeting with your father" email or he didn't. Importance is a social construct. If that email is what it puports to be, then whether it is important is a point of view. The media don't (mis)lead us by telling us lies, they do so by deciding which parts of the truth are important enough to tell us.

You can argue about facts all day, but I would argue that "truth" ends up being something more. Innocence or guilt, vindication on the history books, really any assignment of a quality is done by a collection of people, and the results apply with the bubble of people who have agreed to no longer question what is agreed upon as true.

I promise I could argue all day about whether your initial simple statement was true or not. What does received mean? What did the email say, and did it actually mean what you paraphrase? You'd probably view it as bad faith (and you'd be right), but that faith already implies the exact social consensus I'm taking about.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#54

Post by darkerside »

disown wrote: post #22
darkerside wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, but I don't think the previous status quo was tenable either, and maybe even more problematic. Disclaimer: these are opinions. We allow mainstream press, owned by allies of a politician, to make outlandish claims unverified in the weeks leading up to an election. This has always been "correctable" in the past, in a world where articles could be retracted or condemned, particularly by even more m…

> With social media, the genie is out the bottle with that initial statement, and there's no way to set the record straight anymore, let alone in two weeks before an election. Isn't it actually easier to correct the record with social media since you can correct it immediately and reach the people immediately? Whereas with newspapers, you'd have to wait days/weeks and have to search the tiny section they reserve for…

To your edit, we can rebuild cities after nuclear destruction much faster these days thanks to technology

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#55

Post by darkerside »

beaner wrote: post #21
darkerside wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would consider retractions a mark of respectability, and the failure to issue them a tacit admission of failure in accountability.

That, or, of course, the Post's original reporting has been more accurate.

Sounds like software with no bugs, if you ask me

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#56

Post by akvadrako »

joejohnson wrote: post #52
akvadrako wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the USA liberal and left are closely related - it basically means votes Democrat.

This is incorrect. Just because the two party system has suppressed anything to the left of the democrats does not mean liberals are in any way “the left”; there are many leftist voices in the US (Matt Taibbi, author of the post you’re replying to and presumably read, being one of them) and they are often critical of liberals.

The terms are not well enough defined in common language to claim what you’re claiming.

If you polled all Democratic voters, 90%+ would say they are left and liberal.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#57

Post by chowchowchow »

luckylion wrote: post #51
chowchowchow wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmhmm. I said it’s unfair. Again I don’t see how reiterating that Hunter Biden probably got some jobs because of his name proves the more salacious allegations that were the center of the story...

It doesn't, of course. Just as Mercedes paying Chinese princelings millions doesn't prove that there's corruption in China.

Well there’s other evidence of that! And the trouble here is the evidence from the story is not verified (the FBI has not confirmed its HB’s laptop, has it? The screenshots of the Russian blackberry seem... dubious...). And that’s the sort of thing that most news organizations would gate reporting on.

I do agree it’s a bit strange for Twitter to step in and try to apply editorial standards where NYP didn’t when they otherwise disclaim responsibilities of being a publisher. I dunno; there’s an interesting discussion here if you can tone down the fire in your belly about conspiracies.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#58

Post by as1mov »

joejohnson wrote: post #37

This story has “62 points” and was posted 43 minutes ago (at the time I’m posting this comment) but as soon as I read the story and hit back in the browser, it was pushed off the first three pages of articles. What happened? Did this story get flagged? There’s lots interesting discussion here.

I think that's just HN's flamewar prevention method. Any story with a low score and a large number of comments are pushed down quickly, this is in addition to the fact that the post is getting flagged which pushes it down further.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#59

Post by haltingproblem »

tracer4201 wrote: post #13
haltingproblem wrote: post #2

I fear Taibbi is right, the suppression by Twitter, irrespective of the merits and veracity of NY Post's report, will now normalize all kinds of behavior by platforms of all kinds big and small. Which will then incentivize governments to take on the platforms. This also raises issues of unequal treatment - say the NY Post report was factually wrong - why pick on the NY Post only? Why not the hundreds of other "news o…

The liberal wing was upset that state and non state actors influenced the 2016 election by manipulating social media. Now, Twitter is working to suppress some content that they believe is a repeat attempt — the October surprise if you will. I don’t have strong opinions on whether it’s right or wrong, but I don’t think this is a scandal. Twitter is a private company. You don’t have a constitutional right to write what…

You make valid points and I don't know why are you downvoted. But Twitter is not a journalism play, it is a platform play and purported to be neutral. If there is blatant supression then they will antagonize atleast 50% of Americans which would be terrible for their bottom line.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#60

Post by dragonwriter »

akvadrako wrote: post #56
joejohnson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. Just because the two party system has suppressed anything to the left of the democrats does not mean liberals are in any way “the left”; there are many leftist voices in the US (Matt Taibbi, author of the post you’re replying to and presumably read, being one of them) and they are often critical of liberals.

The terms are not well enough defined in common language to claim what you’re claiming. If you polled all Democratic voters, 90%+ would say they are left and liberal.

> If you polled all Democratic voters, 90%+ would say they are left and liberal.

Or, in the real world, a bit fewer than half would say they are “liberal” or “very liberal”. Because that's something that's polled on quite frequently, so there is real data:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/17/liberals-ma...

It's true that in popular, as opposed to politically sophisticated, conversation in the US, a one-dimensional spectrum where the left and right poles are liberal and conservative is popular, and it's true that partisans on both sides like to portray the opposing party as more ideologically unified and extreme on that axis than it is, so that if you polled Republicans, they'd probably come close to identifying Democrats as consistently both left and liberal.

Post reply on HN